You think they'd be looking at the RD-170 instead of the F-1. The RD-170 has much better performance (an ISP of 311 seconds at sea level instead of the F-1's 265 seconds).

R. Star

April 27 2013 12:50 AM

Re: Saturn V Engine Refurbishment

The question that comes to mind is... why?

diankra

April 27 2013 12:56 AM

Re: Saturn V Engine Refurbishment

I find it difficult to believe that an old F-1 could be refurbished back into service... but backward-engineering it to find the stuff that's not recorded in the paperwork to reproduce it might well be very valuable.

feek61

April 27 2013 03:13 AM

Re: Saturn V Engine Refurbishment

Awesome article. The purpose was to get an accurate digital model to be able to use the F-1 design data and use that information in order to use modern computer modeling to improve upon current liquid-fuel engine design. Firing part of the old engine was just an afterthought and not the reason they did it. Am I the only one that actually read the article? lol

Saturn0660

April 27 2013 04:33 PM

Re: Saturn V Engine Refurbishment

Quote:

R. Star wrote:
(Post 8007805)

The question that comes to mind is... why?

Shit, the real question is.. Why NOT fire it up.. :techman:

Because we can..

HarryM

April 27 2013 08:52 PM

Re: Saturn V Engine Refurbishment

If it serves a purpose. As the article says, the test stands for the full engine have been long since torn down or repurposed, so they'd have to be rebuilt, which is a lot to do just for kicks.

These will replace the SRBs. each Liquid fueled booster (LFB) will have two f-1 engines. The booster is tentatively named Pyrios, after one of the fiery horses that pulled the god Apollo's chariot; the engine is being called the F-1B.

Now if you recall, Energiya was similar, in that it had hydrogen burning (RD-0120) engines were placed under the Russian external Tank (Energiya itself) rendering Buran just one of many possible payloads. The booster used four thin strap-ons each with one RD-170 (four nozzle) engine. Pyrios will be fatter, and have two F-1 B engines

gturner

April 29 2013 12:33 AM

Re: Saturn V Engine Refurbishment

^ Well that's just bad naming, since Pyrios is only one horse (not two), and it didn't pull Apollo's chariot, it pulled the chariot of Helios, whose other favorite horses to drag the sun across the sky were Phlegon, Aeos, and Aethon. So the new boosters should at least have different names for left and right. I'd go with calling the two F-1B boosters "Pyrios" and "Phlegon" and Thiokol's two solid boosters "Aeos" and "Aethon". I'd also name the SLS after either Demeter or Circe, who both have some associations with pork.

The confusion of Apollo and Helios is pretty interesting. Obviously Apollo couldn't be pulling the sun across the sky or the world would've gone dark every time he was in the countryside spreading plague, stirring up trouble, or banging chicks, which would be a major plot hole. The confusion seems to stem from the word Phoebus ("bright"), which could refer to Helios, but also was used for "phoebus Apollo." Perhaps this is a bit like confusing the sun with Cher's ex-husband, but in any event it seems to have really taken hold in the Victorian era.

publiusr

April 30 2013 12:07 AM

Re: Saturn V Engine Refurbishment

Quote:

gturner wrote:
(Post 8007754)

You think they'd be looking at the RD-170 instead of the F-1. The RD-170 has much better performance (an ISP of 311 seconds at sea level instead of the F-1's 265 seconds).

We have the plans to RD-180, the two-nozzle version half stength version used by Atlas V, but I think they were worried about burn throughs early on in the X-170

Glushko loved hypergolics. His largest single chanber engine was RD-270, which the Chinese should have bought--but they didn't like the toxicity.

Ironically the RD-0120 hydrogen burning engine was developed without big problems. It had channel wall cooling. I'd rather keep the F-1 but use RD-0120 instead of RS-25 SSME whatever.

These will replace the SRBs. each Liquid fueled booster (LFB) will have two f-1 engines.

This has been decided upon? Last I heard the advanced boosters were going to be competed out.

gturner

April 30 2013 04:54 AM

Re: Saturn V Engine Refurbishment

^ The F-1B's haven't been decided on. It's just an option that a contractor is bidding.

I agree that NASA should move away from the RS-25E's, which despite modifications for expendability are still too expensive for anyone other than NASA. The RS-68's aren't that much better, especially given their much lower ISP.

They should probably start pursuing the recent innovation of using a swirling oxygen counterflow (injected upward from near the throat to swirl around the sides of the combustion chamber, providing cooling without built in passages).

Crazy Eddie

April 30 2013 06:39 AM

Re: Saturn V Engine Refurbishment

Quote:

gturner wrote:
(Post 8016265)

I'd also name the SLS after either Demeter or Circe, who both have some associations with pork.

:lol: You owe me a new keyboard and a fresh cup of coffee.

Seriously, though, I think NASA is just going to leave it as "SLS". They have always had a sort of fetishistic obsession with acronyms over the years, but it's gotten so bad over the years that they have actually started coming up with acronyms for things that are supposed to have proper names. I've actually heard some NASA officials referring to the Columbus laboratory "the CSL." I've also been informed that some acronyms actually contain other acronyms (The "PICA Principle" for example stands for "Pre Integrated Columbus APM" where "APM" stands for "Attached pressurized module.")